Pentek US-1500 vs Everpure H-300

[bobka]

I am interested in buying the under-sink filtration system, which is not RO.
Both models Pentek US-1500 and Everpure H-300 look promising, but I cannot decide which one to buy. Could you help me with this issue (pros/cons)?

If you have some other system, which you consider better, I will be glad to get your recommendation.

[Aquaman]

Comparing these 2 systems is hardly comparing apples to apples. They are very different in a # of ways. The US-1500 uses standard "slimline" 10" x 2.5" cartridges, which are going to be available for the next millenium. The H-300 is a proprietary filter cartridge, and though there is no evidence that this system is going out of style anytime soon, it may eventually happen, and then finding filter cartridges could be an issue. The H-300 has a self contained cartridge, which is much easier to replace than the traditional housing and cartridge style system of the US-1500. The H-300 also uses KDF media in it's filter cartridge. KDF is an amazing filter media, far superior to carbon, but also much more expensive. There are no KDF filters available for the US-1500, however, the filters that are available will reduce a significant list of nasty contaminants that you don't want to drink, and will give you really great water. If money were no object, the H-300 is the better system, but for the $ the US-1500 is a great system. In the end, though, both systems fall far short of the ultimate in filtration, which is Reverse Osmosis.

[bobka]

Thanks for the quick reply. One more question troubles me regarding the Pentek unit.

As far as I know, carbon based filtering media provides a great breeding ground for bacteria.
H-300 has a built-in bacteriostat to prevent bacteria from spreading.

How does US-1500 deal with this issue?

[Aquaman]

You are correct that carbon can provide a breeding ground for bacteria, however, this is only an issue if two things are in play. First there needs to be bacteria present, which is rare on municipal water supplies, and secondly even if bacteria is present, it will only have the opportunity to grow if the water is stagnant for long periods of time. If the system is being used on a daily basis, the constant flushing of the filter media will protect against bacterial infection.

[bobka]

I would like to gain more understanding regarding the KDF media.

As far as I understand in contrast to activated carbon, which absorbs all kind of contaminants, KDF creates some kind of electro-chemical reaction during which many harmful contaminants are changed into harmless.

The question is how harmless the new elements are, and if the resulting water has been thoroughly tested by FDA and other relative departments?

Are there any other undersink systems, which incorporate both activated carbon and KDF?

[Aquaman]

There are 3 issues I would like to address in this post: First, concerning KDF media: Not all contaminants are removed through the redox process, whereby electrons are swapped between elements turning harmful contaminants into harmless ones. Many contaminants, particularily heavy metals, actually bond to the KDF media and do not get processed through redox. Naturally there has been a great deal of testing done to discover the content of the water after it has been exposed to KDF, and the contaminants have been through the redox process. So far, all the results are very positive, and there has been no evidence of negative "side effects". KDF is very safe, and will make your water safer to drink!

Second, concerning carbon media: Carbon is only susceptible to bacterial contamination if bacteria is present. The vast majority of Americans use treated water, which rarely suffers from bacterial contamination. Therefore, carbon is going be a great choice of filter media for most Americans. The bottom line is that both media types have advantages and disadvantages. Combining these medias will offer the best of both worlds, which is the case with this filter: Pentek DBC-10EX2 Bacteriostatic KDF and GAC Water Filters 255748-43

Third, and lastly concerning my choice of a filter system: If I had to choose between the US-1500 and the H-300, I would choose the US-1500. $ for $ it's a great system. If the H-300 were less expensive, I would probably choose it for it's slightly better filtation, but I prefer systems that use industry standard cartridges, which are ALWAYS going to be available. It also means that I can switch to a different cartridge to meet the changing condition of my water supply. Should the local municipality drill a new well, and the condition of my water change, I can get a different cartridge to meet my needs. The end of the story, though, is that I wouldn't buy either of these systems. All things being equal Aquaman drinks Reverse Osmosis water over any other water, ALWAYS! RO RULES, and don't cry to me about the lack of mineral content! Mineral content is completely overrated.

[Aquaman]

It looks like Aquaman has unearthed another member of the Anti-RO cult.

There is absolutely no solid evidence that persons eating a balanced diet will suffer from a lack of any particular "nutrient" because they drink RO water exclusively. Sure, if I'm stranded on a deserted Island like Tom Hanks in Castaway, then removing any potential "nutrient" from the water through RO might not be the best choice. However, since I'm not living on a subsistence diet, and like most Americans have access to the worlds most nutrient rich food supply, I can live better without stressing my kidneys and liver to sort through water loaded with many useless, and in many cases harmful things.

To your other point, I won't disagree that Everpure does have cartridges capable of dealing with a variety of situations, but it does not offer the total flexibility of a system using industry standard cartridges, of which there are several thousand to choose from. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with any Everpure system. They are manufactured from the best materials available, and are extremely durable and reliable. However, they are also significantly more expensive, and have proprietary cartridge designs, which I personally view as a drawback. Having said that, the proprietary cartridge design does have it's place, especially for those who don't like to get their hands dirty, or have a very low capacity for maintenance i.e. the physically challenged or the elderly. If ultra easy maintenance is a must, then a system like an Everpure H-300 with a proprietary cartridge design is the only way to go. They are designed to allow for cartridge changes without getting so much as a drop of water on your hand.

[Aquaman]

That would be a gross overstatement of my position, and I think it would be appropriate if we toned down the rhetoric just a bit. This isn't a political campaign, it's an intelligent conversation about water purification.

My position is that there is no single solution best for "all" situations. Obviously the wants and needs of each person and their unique water condition must be considered. Having said that, there are very few situations where RO would not prove to be a great solution for cooking and drinking water. RO water is tasteless and odorless which is what water is supposed to be. RO water is ultra purified, filtered to an astonishing .0005 microns. The bottom line is that no other type of filtration system can produce water as pure and perfect as an RO system. That doesn't mean it's the best fit for all situations, or all people, but it does mean that all other things being equal, a glass of RO water is a nearly perfect glass of water.

Concerning the other contaminants I am concerned about, just take a look at any National Testing Laboratories water test results report, and there are over 75 contaminants, of which only some are partially removed by regular carbon or KDF filter systems. Reverse Osmosis covers a much broader spectrum, and removes or reduces those contaminants much more completely. I can understand the misled logic that RO removes too much stuff from the water, but to deny the existence of a vast array of contaminants left behind by regular filter systems is to deny the scientific facts.

[bobka]

Hi jjhrae,

After a thorough research, I have also reached the conclusion that Everpure H-300 is superior to Pentek and all others.
I don't mind paying an extra $ for a better and safer water, and a water filter which is much easier to replace.

Regarding the RO systems, I couldn’t agree with you more.
I have personally consulted some people who have a PhD in the subject of water treatment, and they all claimed that RO systems are potentially harmful, and will extract vital minerals from the body.
BTW my parents have a RO system and the water tastes awful.

[One Dumm Hikk]

Originally Posted by Aquaman

The bottom line is that no other type of filtration system can produce water as pure and perfect as an RO system.

I am not going to get drug into an RO/non-RO debate. But, your "bottom line" is wrong. RO water is NOT the most "pure and perfect" water you can get. Run your RO water through a DI canister and check the TDS before and after. If the DI is properly working, the TDS will be zero. If you don't want to use DI, use distilled water, it will have the same effect.

Zero TDS water (whether distilled or deionized) will have harmful side effects to your health. Even at a level of 20ppm TDS (RO water), it will have harmful side effects to your health.

I use RO water for cooking and for making tea. At no point do I use it to drink plain water though.